DNR staff begin EIS process for East Side sustainable harvest calculation; board hears scope, constraints and next steps

OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington Department of Natural Resources on Feb. 18 told the Board of Natural Resources that it has initiated an environmental impact statement for the East Side sustainable harvest calculation after staff concluded the proposal may have probable significant environmental impacts.

At a study session, Sarah Ogden, assistant division manager for projects and planning, told the board the department issued a Determination of Significance under the State Environmental Policy Act and must prepare a draft and final EIS before the board may adopt a decadal sustainable harvest level. "Staff determined that the East Side sustainable harvest calculation have potential significant environmental impacts and elected to skip the checklist, issuing a determination of significance and thus initiating the environmental impact process," Ogden said.

Why it matters: State law and DNR policy require the agency and board to set a decadal sustainable harvest level that reflects current conditions and objectives. The EIS will analyze environmental impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures at the scale of sustainable-harvest units so the board can compare trade-offs among habitat protections, forest health and trust beneficiaries.

Statutory and policy context: Staff reviewed statutes including RCW 79.10.300 and related RCWs that direct the department to calculate and the board to adopt a sustainable harvest level and explained policy constraints that limit decadal change to roughly 25 percent. Ogden also described how the department’s Habitat Conservation Plan, species-specific procedures (for lynx, goshawk and the northern spotted owl), riparian rules and watershed-size limits are represented as constraints in the harvest model rather than objectives to be optimized.

Spotted-owl procedure under review: Cameron Crump, forest resources division manager, told the board the spotted-owl procedure predates the HCP and established local "owl circles" — nest-site buffers — that remain on the East Side. "One of the things that we wanted to consider exploring within this process is what opportunities there were to adjust this procedure to assist with meeting forest health and resilience against wildfire goals," Crump said. Staff said the EIS will analyze alternatives that consider whether the procedure should be rescinded or adjusted on the East Side.

Scoping and engagement: DNR said it conducted initial scoping in 2021 and a revised scoping in February 2024. The scoping notice and reports summarize comments from tribes, agencies, industry groups, environmental organizations and citizens. Ogden said the department will involve tribes, the public and other agencies through notice and comment opportunities and that draft EIS comment periods will meet the SEPA minimum of 30 days though DNR typically provides 60 days or longer.

Tribal consultation and environmental justice: Duane Lemons, deputy for state uplands, said DNR has held staff-to-staff sessions and some in-person tribal meetings and will continue government-to-government consultation as appropriate. The department also said it will complete an environmental justice assessment under the HEAL Act because the SHC was determined to be a significant agency action.

Model and data support: Kate McBurney, project manager for the sustainable-harvest model, said the model project will supply standardized data summaries and a projected inventory (100–150 years) to inform EIS analyses, while acknowledging not every model output will be used verbatim in the EIS. "The environmental impact statement mainly has data needs," McBurney said. "We provide responses to the quantitative data questions that they have."

Arrearage and board direction: Staff reminded the board of an April 2025 motion directing DNR not to include arrearage in the East Side recalculation; instead, staff described a baseline approach that folds current inventory into the calculation moving forward rather than separately offering arrearage for sale.

Draft EIS components and decision space: Ogden outlined that the draft EIS will contain chapters on current conditions, alternatives and environmental consequences (direct, indirect and cumulative effects). The required no-action alternative will represent DNR’s current operating environment; action alternatives must meet the scoping purpose, need and objectives and be consistent with existing laws, policies and land plans. The board may adopt a harvest level associated with an EIS alternative or within the analyzed range; adopting levels outside analyzed ranges would require additional EIS work.

Financial analysis and next steps: Although financial study is not a SEPA requirement, DNR will produce a financial analysis for the project as directed by the board, covering costs such as forest-health treatments and potential community impacts. Staff said upcoming study sessions will address multi-objective optimization and alternatives in March and financial analysis in April, with possible board discussion in May.

Board members asked about the timeline and implications of reopening scoping, the operational feasibility of alternatives, how acres and buffers are verified in the field, and whether arrearage could be reconsidered after catastrophic landscape changes such as wildfire. Heidi Tate of DNR’s SIPA Center said rescoping would trigger a comment period (minimum 30 days) and likely require several months to complete.

No board votes or policy decisions occurred at the study session; the meeting was adjourned after questions and comments.

What’s next: DNR will complete the draft EIS and open a public comment period; staff will return to the board in March to discuss alternatives and multi-objective optimization and in April for the financial analysis and metrics that will inform the board decision space.